[rfc-i] URL Issue, was Re: draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-07.txt

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Apr 3 08:05:13 PDT 2009


At 2:20 PM +0200 4/3/09, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>My strawman would be: I think the way to solve this is by moving the 3.4 text to what is now the first half of section 3.2.3. In other words:
>
>3.2.3.  Paragraph 3
>
> The boilerplate ends with a reference to where further relevant
> information can be found.  This may include information
> whether the RFC has been updated or obsoleted, the RFC's origin, a
> listing of possible errata, information about how to provide
> feedback and suggestion, and information on how to submit errata
> as described in [I-D.rfc-editor-errata-process]. The exact wording, and URL,
> is subject to change (at the RFC Editor's discretion), but current text is:
>
> "Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
>  and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
>  http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/<stream-id>/rfc<rfc-no>"
>  where <stream-id> is one of: "ietf", "iab", "irtf", "independent".

Please, no. Those URLs are permanent, in that they are listed in a permanent RFC. Adding in the "<stream-id>" means that, a decade from now, we will have to explain why we use these old stream names even though there are now different ones.

>Implementation wise this URL could initially a redirect to a very generic page and as more tools are available/programmed it could become more specific. I think that is in the spirit of finding the best balance between prescriptiveness and RFC-Editor responsibility.

A different proposal is simply "http://www.rfc-editor.org/status/rfc<rfc-no>". Implementation with this URL could initially a redirect to a very generic stream-specific page and, as more tools are available/programmed, it could become more specific.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list